pull down to refresh
Standard Oil didn't become a monopoly by capturing the state, it captured the state because it already was one
As I noted in the other discussion, Standard Oil was losing market share prior to the anti-trust intervention: i.e. market forces pushed against its "monopoly" (there were other providers in that market).
They had huge market share by innovating new products and production methods, which is a trivial and temporary way to be a monopoly that tells us nothing about market tendencies.
The market was correcting refining share, not control of transportation. And what good is competition in refining if everyone has to pay the toll on the same pipeline?
What good does there need to be, when prices came down because of Standard Oil's innovations?
What's the problem that needed to be solved by the state and what was stopping competitors from building their own pipelines? Also, there were other transportation options that weren't controlled by Standard Oil, so that wasn't a monopoly either.
What good does there need to be, when prices came down because of Standard Oil's innovations?
Prices fell mostly before 1873, when Standard had no power yet, and during its dominance, refining patents stalled. Cheap product, locked door.
What was stopping competitors from building their own pipelines?
Standard, it bought land to block Tidewater's route, lobbied for exclusive charters, and sabotaged rivals.
There were other transportation options, so it wasn't a monopoly.
Railroads charged Standard 10 cents per barrel and independents 35, then rebated Standard the difference. By 1900, Standard controlled 90% of pipeline investment, it wasn't one option, it was the option.
If the market was self-correcting, why did it take the Hepburn Amendment and the Supreme Court to open the door?
What I think you're over looking is that monopolies are self-defeating. That's the more interesting economic point. Market forces push against monopolies that arise from first-mover situations, as with Standard Oil.
I would say it's the persistence of a monopoly that requires state protections, in most cases, rather than the existence (which can just be a fleeting temporal artifact of having innovated new products).